Protect your images with evidence-led rights support.

Opening a case is not a matter of collecting files. We first identify who is submitting it, in what capacity, under which reference and for what exact purpose. Each document is then logged with its channel, its date and its role, so it is clear from the outset what is an original, a working copy, a public observation or simply a party’s statement.

Source files, screenshots, web addresses and relevant exchanges remain recognizable throughout the review, and any conversion made for reading or comparison keeps track of the original. If information is missing, a link no longer works or a file was altered after it was sent, the file says so instead of filling the gap with an assumption.

Access follows need: sensitive documents are open only to the people working on the matter, and public information is kept separate from private references. None of this settles the legal question in advance. It means that anyone reviewing the file later can see where each finding comes from and what still needs to be confirmed.

A useful timeline does more than list dates. It links each event to an identifiable source and explains its role: creation or first known publication, an existing licence or permission, the appearance of the use, the capture date, the identification of the presumed responsible party, the first contact and any reply. The order in which things were discovered is never confused with the order in which they happened.

Web pages change and content disappears. Notes made during the review therefore record what was visible, where, and under what conditions. A screenshot does not replace the full context; it captures one moment of it. If a later exchange produces a licence, corrects a date or points to another responsible party, the analysis is updated and the earlier history is kept.

Another authorized reviewer can then find the key documents quickly, tell contemporaneous information apart from later reconstruction and see which steps still need confirmation. Avoiding shortcuts and hindsight makes the file easier to revise and keeps the next decision in line with the actual state of the record.

A useful letter starts from facts that can be checked: the work concerned, where and when the use was observed, the rights relied on and what is actually being requested. It avoids generalizations, definitive labels while key questions remain open, and demands that the evidence does not support. The recipient should be able to understand the issue, find the content and know how to respond securely.

A reply may bring a licence, a permission, details about the site publisher, a factual correction or the name of another responsible party. That information is treated as something that can change the file, not as an obstacle. A clear response channel improves the review, avoids needless exchanges and helps distinguish a resolved situation from a mistaken attribution or a genuine disagreement.

The next step always matches the state of the matter. A correction request, a licence discussion, a platform notice, a settlement conversation and a referral to a lawyer are different paths, not stages of an automatic process. Every decision must be explainable from the documents and exchanges on file. Credible correspondence relies on restraint, consistency and a real opportunity for both sides to be heard, never on intimidation.